Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why we should all have a basic income

weforum.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 492 posts

Re: Why we should all have a basic income

#211

Post by gotofritz »

dzink wrote: post #192

During Brexit, people in job-starved areas of UK were reported as resentful for receiving handouts. They wanted gainful employment and their dignity back. You could have corporations foot the bill for basic income and people with certain values would still not want it. The image of being a breadwinner is so deeply instilled in some people that for them not being that, triggers mid-life-crisis: a depression, sense of…

Maybe in future there can be some gamification of the whole thing, led by the government for the "common good" (although I wouldn't hold my breath). But I think giving meaning to people's life is a task beyond a government. Experience in Communist countries shows government should be kept as far away as possible from such tasks.

Re: Why we should all have a basic income

#212

Post by planck01 »

programmarchy wrote: post #23

UBI is attempting to cloak itself in free market rhetoric, but it's bullshit. Yes it may "incentivize" some individuals to work, but only by disincentivizing others. It takes money from top wealth producers, discouraging their labor, and gives it to people who aren't producing as much wealth, effectively subsidizing unproductive work. This will make everyone poorer in the long run. The struggling artist meme is an ap…

I am not sure if basic income works. But I am certain that assuming everyone is lazy and won't want to work if they don't strictly need to for survival is not how people work. Market-oriented thinking seems to assume this. But I think that most people want to have a purposeful life and achieve things.

I do expect it will influence the number of bullshit jobs that exist to keep people at work. And it might influence the lowest income and most mechanical types of work. Which is fine if we can automate and mechanize those. But I don't expect a lot of effect on more intellectual work.

Re: Why we should all have a basic income

#213

Post by kome »

dzink wrote: post #192

During Brexit, people in job-starved areas of UK were reported as resentful for receiving handouts. They wanted gainful employment and their dignity back. You could have corporations foot the bill for basic income and people with certain values would still not want it. The image of being a breadwinner is so deeply instilled in some people that for them not being that, triggers mid-life-crisis: a depression, sense of…

yep, let's buy them a Nintendo :)

Seriously now: if they have money, it's up to them to find a meaning of life. Not having to work, doesn't mean you shouldn't work. You can help with old people, or educate the youth. You can work on some very non-profitable, but good and meaningful agricultural thing. You can fix your city. You can clean the street. You can work on open source software. You can build furniture.

Giving money just to the poor is stigmatizing, and very bad for mental health as you pointed out. A universal measure would be very different tho.

Re: Why we should all have a basic income

#215

Post by heycomeoncomeon »

I'm adding to the the discussion cause we have very smart people here with very good assessments on what the implications are for basic income. I had to chime in to clear some of the speculation on the arguments brought forward. I'm not for or against basic income at the moment but I want to make sure we are all on the same page on what inflation is and the basics of economics.

Inflation is simply the influx of money that causes the "value" of ALL goods/services to increase. This is due to the increase of the money supply which decreases the value of the currency. I emphasize that it is the value of ALL goods/services not just one or a large number of sectors. When we see prices rise up in goods and services in one area it isn't inflation because it is in one area of the economy.

Another misunderstood axiom of economics is that a market is based on finite resources. If goods in one area of the market increase then somewhere else across the economy the value of goods and services decrease. Now the misinterpretation of inflation and price hikes happen due to one variable, time. The time it takes for price hikes in one area to affect another is what gives the perception of inflation. But when the value of groceries significantly increases then I assure you people are going to eat out less. It just takes time for the sectors to affect on one another.

Re: Why we should all have a basic income

#216

Post by protomyth »

lotharbot wrote: post #88
programmarchy wrote: post #23

UBI is attempting to cloak itself in free market rhetoric, but it's bullshit. Yes it may "incentivize" some individuals to work, but only by disincentivizing others. It takes money from top wealth producers, discouraging their labor, and gives it to people who aren't producing as much wealth, effectively subsidizing unproductive work. This will make everyone poorer in the long run. The struggling artist meme is an ap…

> "attempting to cloak itself in free market rhetoric" ... Friedman and Hayek both advocated for a UBI. http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/08/why-aren...

from the article you cited: Milton Friedman advocated a minimum guaranteed income via a “negative income tax.”

Minimum guaranteed income is different than basic income.

Re: Why we should all have a basic income

#217

Post by sean_patel »

dzink wrote: post #192

During Brexit, people in job-starved areas of UK were reported as resentful for receiving handouts. They wanted gainful employment and their dignity back. You could have corporations foot the bill for basic income and people with certain values would still not want it. The image of being a breadwinner is so deeply instilled in some people that for them not being that, triggers mid-life-crisis: a depression, sense of…

I couldn't get past the 1st line

> Consider for a moment that from this day forward, on the first day of every month, around $1,000 is deposited into your bank account – because you are a citizen.

If implemented, it will surely be a disaster in America (DOA - Dead on Arrival), considering how well African Americans have worked and abused the Food Stamps system.

Let me tell you a story. I was getting my beat up Honda Civic in SOMA last month, when a black dude rolled up in a Mercedes-Benz and paid cash to the owner for some work done earlier. After he left, I told the Mechanic "Wow, High roller huh?". To which the mechanic laughed. "Well. He lives in Bayshore (Bayshore is like Ghetto / Projects) in a nice 3-BR apt, pays only 300$ rent, and has 4 kids, because the more kids you have and are un-employed, the more hand-outs the govt gives in terms of food stamps and stuff, and the less they charge for rent." He said it gets even better for "single moms", so women who are single moms deliberately choose to not marry their new dude, despite being with him for several years, since they'll lose the "benefits" from the government.

In short, American are inherently lazy and will "work the system" any which way they can. I see the people getting high on weed with free $ from the Goverment and not doing anything to become gainfully employed again.

[ I know the PC-Police here at HN will downvote and flag me into oblivion, but this is the ground reality in America ]

Re: Why we should all have a basic income

#218

Post by chris_va »

ng12 wrote: post #199
dzink wrote: post #192

During Brexit, people in job-starved areas of UK were reported as resentful for receiving handouts. They wanted gainful employment and their dignity back. You could have corporations foot the bill for basic income and people with certain values would still not want it. The image of being a breadwinner is so deeply instilled in some people that for them not being that, triggers mid-life-crisis: a depression, sense of…

And when they voiced anger about the government accepting immigrants when there already wasn't enough work to go around they got called racist. I think UBI's effect on immigration is an interesting topic and one I don't see discussed in most articles. What does it mean to be a citizen of a country when, statistically speaking, you're a drain on the economy? How does immigration fit into that model? In my mind UBI doe…

I think your explanation on the racist name calling shows why this is such a difficult topic.

There is a incorrect assumption that people often make, without malice, about economics being a zero sum game. It really is not, almost by definition.

The more people in an area, usually the more opportunity people have for employment over a long time period, and the higher the economic output.

Also, there is a difference between refugees (i.e. people who might otherwise die) and economic immigrants. It's hard to fault someone for their perception that other people might take their jobs, correct or not. It is easier to fault someone for taking the same stance when the alternative for the immigrants is potentially far more catastrophic. Especially when the arguments are more about culture and race than employment.

Re: Why we should all have a basic income

#219

Post by [deleted] »

edblarney wrote: post #172
programmarchy wrote: post #23

UBI is attempting to cloak itself in free market rhetoric, but it's bullshit. Yes it may "incentivize" some individuals to work, but only by disincentivizing others. It takes money from top wealth producers, discouraging their labor, and gives it to people who aren't producing as much wealth, effectively subsidizing unproductive work. This will make everyone poorer in the long run. The struggling artist meme is an ap…

"UBI is attempting to cloak itself in free market rhetoric, but it's bullshit." I'm not a fan of UBI - but it's not 'bullshit' in the manner it's presented. UBI is really a 'negative income tax' - and it was first proposed by 'Milton Freeman' - a super-duper free market capitalist. If you take progressive taxation, then make the lower ends negative - you have UBI. The concept came from economists - not socialists. Bu…

[deleted]

Re: Why we should all have a basic income

#220

Post by jbmorgado »

DougN7 wrote: post #59
jbmorgado wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We are taking about "basic" needs here. All your argument then must imply that UBI or NOT UBI, "basic needs" must be denied to part of the population or else they get too expensive. And as almost all will agree, that's not only logically wrong, it's also morally wrong.

If I had a magic wand and could give everyone everything, I'd do it. But my wishes don't overcome basic supply and demand. Unless there's a lot more goods suddenly being produced, prices will rise if more people want them and can pay for them, which will tend to cancel the benefits of UBI.

But you have a magic wand that can give everyone at the very minimum the "basic needs", it's called better wealth distribution.
Post reply on HN